Wilt was a great player, but his numbers are clearly a product of his era. He once averaged 50 points and 26 rebounds in a season. Just think about how crazy that even sounds. If he had played with the rules and competition of the 90's, he would have been just another great center among many. Rodman played in an era full of great rebounders, and he outshined them all by a significant margin.

No, Wilt today wouldn't be "just another great center among many". Wilt did things never or rarely seen before, during or since and was physically and talent-wise, among the best to ever live. And this while in the 50's-60's, with clearly less means available and less players to idolize and study.

And if his dominance was "clearly a product of his era", there would be players from his own era to rival his records and numbers, and yet no-one did. Even according to a metric like PER, which adjusts for pace and minutes played and undervalues areas like rebounding, passing or shot-blocking (which wasn't even counted in Wilt's time), Wilt had some of the most dominant seasons ever, clearly ahead of the seasons of the other all-time greats of his era, who didn't even get as much playing time as him.

No, Wilt today wouldn't be "just another great center among many". Wilt did things never or rarely seen before, during or since and was physically and talent-wise, among the best to ever live. And this while in the 50's-60's, with clearly less means available and less players to idolize and study.

And if his dominance was "clearly a product of his era", there would be players from his own era to rival his records and numbers, and yet no-one did. Even according to a metric like PER, which adjusts for pace and minutes played and undervalues areas like rebounding, passing or shot-blocking (which wasn't even counted in Wilt's time), Wilt had some of the most dominant seasons ever, clearly ahead of the seasons of the other all-time greats of his era, who didn't even get as much playing time as him.

Wilt played in an era where only a handful of players were above 6'10, and most who were that tall were poor athletes. The rules back then allowed Wilt to clog the lane, and without a 3 point line, most shots were taken around the basket, meaning shorter and easier rebounds. Also, star players back then almost never left the court, which contributed to their astronomical statistics. Wilt could have been a great center among the likes of Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq, but he wouldn't have dominated them like he dominated his competition in the 60's.

Wilt played in an era where only a handful of players were above 6'10, and most who were that tall were poor athletes. The rules back then allowed Wilt to clog the lane, and without a 3 point line, most shots were taken around the basket, meaning shorter and easier rebounds. Also, star players back then almost never left the court, which contributed to their astronomical statistics. Wilt could have been a great center among the likes of Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq, but he wouldn't have dominated them like he dominated his competition in the 60's.

The "handful" of players who were 6'10+ (barefoot, that is) were basically most teams' starting centers. Of course 6'10+ guys were few compared to now, but you know what? 6'0 guys were also few. Centers' athleticism may not have been as high as the athleticism of today's players per average, but they weren't as stiff or weak as portreyed.

Here are the starting centers of the '62 league:

-Walt Bellamy. 6'11 barefoot and not unathletic by any means. Wilt faced him about 10 times that season and averaged about 55 ppg against him, including outscoring him 51 vs 14 in their first meeting.
-Clyde Lovellette. 6'9, not very athletic, but strong and tough, with good scoring ability. He was also coupled with 6'9 Bob Pettit, an all-time great.
-Walter Dukes. 7'0 even barefoot, though not very talented a scorer.
-Wayne Embry. The shortest starting center of the league, standing at 6'8 barefoot, same properties with Lovelette.
-Ray Felix, 6'11, with decent athleticism.
-Phil Jordon, 6'10, probably the worst starting center in the league (him or Dukes).
-Red Kerr, 6'9. Not very athletic, but a big body and among the smartest big men in the league.
-Bill Russell, 6'9, very athletic.
-Wilt Chamberlain, 7'1, very athletic.

Wilt did face stiffs, but he also faced athletic guys. It's not his fault that he belongs to the second group. If we are to penelize him because of this, let's penalize all players whose size, athleticism and strength gave them an advantage or, let's only count games when they faced opponents with comparable size, athleticism and talent.

As for star players never leaving games, while this is true, this also means that this would take a toll to their fatigue and their efficiency. So, while these players might not produce as much if they only played 38-40 minutes, modern composite stats like PER would probably rank them higher than they do. However, let me just ask you this: How much value do you put into LeBron's productivity in seasons like 2006, when he produced 31.4/7.0/6.6? Do you leave it as it is or you you take into account the fact that he was also playing 42.5 mpg that season and that his numbers in, say, 38 mpg, would be closer to a more "mortal" 28/6/6? How about Iverson's scoring titles? While producing 30-32 ppg, he was also a 42-43 mpg player. Adjust his playing time to 38 mpg and you'll get 27-29 ppg for his best seasons and less overall scoring accolades. Do you find this fair?

Didn't we have this out about a month ago? I distinctly remember arguing with an idiot with "Nique" in his name that couldn't read worth a damn.

Rodman, period.

Mathius

This.

The era was just weird as far as rebounding. I mean, even Dr J averaged 16 a game one year, and Russel averaged 20+ a game a few times. Now, I'm not saying that these guys couldn't play or anything, but they probably wouldn't be much better than Shaq or Hakeem if they played in the modern age. Rodman average 18+ a couple of times, which is probably the most mind-blowing single season per game type stat of the last twenty years.

Chamberlain played in a WEAK era against stiffs and "superstars" who wouldn't even be good enough to be on the roster for the Kings. By FAR is Rodman the better rebounder.

I feel like throwing up chunks whenever I see your post.. Can someone please teach me how to put someone on ignore. I'm still relatively new to this board and I hate reading horrible posts like that.

As for the Chamberlain/Rodman discussion, Wilt used his athleticism and height to rebound as opposed to Dennis who took advantage of big men's center of gravity. He would throw them off-balance, and even at times outjump a man cause either he jumped too late, or jumped too early. Dennis has that certain instinct when it comes to rebounding, he's just so damn crafty when it comes to that. But, I think I would still rather take Wilt's athleticism over Dennis's instincts. It's close.. but I'd honestly take a 7'1 freak of nature. Dennis would come in a close second however.

rodman is the GOAT rebounder. i know stilt rebounded more and is an all-time great rebounder and i am NOT saying that his rebound numbers were greater because of a "weak" era because i dont think its true. However, i believe his rebounding numbers were greater than rodman's because the game was played at a faster pace, causing more missed shots and there were more rebounds to be had.

dennis rodman led the nba from 1991-92 until 1997-98: here is the list of the year, his rebounds per game, the average number of rebounds per game (average per team times 2 since 2 teams play every game), and the percentage:

DR= Dennis Rodman, DR'S % of Rebs = percentage of rebounds a game rodman would get in an average game in that particular season

so in a typical game, rodman would pull down a larger percent of the rebounds than wilt (not by much... but still a couple percentage points higher). and then when you take into account the minutes per game... it is clear that rodman's rebounding > wilt's rebounding. in those 7 years for Wilt, Wilt averaged at LEAST 45.2 minutes per game in every season (with a high of 48.5 minutes per game in 1961-62. Rodman, on the other hand, averaged at MOST 40.3 minutes per game in his stretch of leading the league, including a couple of seasons of averaging only about 32 minutes per game. so not only was wilt playing when more rebounds were to be had, but also he was hardly off the court compared to rodman. how impressive is it that rodman in 1994-95 for san antonio grabbed 20.2% of the rebounds in a typical game, but only played 32.0 minutes per game? thats insane!

in a vaccum, wilts rebounding is the best of all-time, but if you take into account the pace of the league in which he played in, the higher volume of missed shots (nearly twice as many rebounds were had in his era in some years), and the amount of minutes played, you can see that rodman is the greater rebounder, and i would say the GOAT rebounder. (not a slight on wilt, he was great, but it was just a different speed of game when he played).

basically, if you take into account the pace of games, and the amount of rebounds available then rodman appears to be better. this has nothing to do with "Weak" eras cause thats a b.s arguement, but just different styles